ICS #3

This was my first visit to answer bag. I typically just read blogs and post in a few small online communities, where everybody knows your name. Answer bag was a new experience for me. I posted in a dozen different categories to cast a wide net, hoping variety would get me the points I was after. I asked about recipes, advice, opinions, and experiences. In the name of science, I asked different types of questions. It was challenging at first because a lot of my questions had already been asked. I was really hoping my request for a Chile Colorado recipe would reach Mexican grandmother's everywhere and inspire them to divulge secret family recipes. That did not happen as I hoped. Among other things, I goofed and meant to post a response, but ended up answering my question. I got the impression that answer bag is a place to find all types of information. I liked the detailed categories and subcategories. I saw a lot of polling questions that were being answered. Questions like, what is your favorite dessert?

My most answered question was: What time is it where you are at? Yes, a whopping 6 people shared their time zone information with me, how kind. I know there must be a successful strategy to attract points and responses, but I can't claim to know what that is. I saw other posts with only a few points and responses, so I must not be the only newbie. I can see the usefulness of the site, but I found it to be an overwhelming and frustrating experience. There was so much activity going on that it was difficult to attract attention. I felt like the middle child in a large family trying to get attention before someone else steals my thunder. It's a fast paced community with a new question popping up every second. Variety was the name of my strategy, but that didn't seem to get me very far. I poked around and saw that some questions have 100+ answers. I looked at some profiles and it seems that the more friends you have the more answers you will get. It would have helped if I had a politically controversial statement to make. Those questions seemed to rouse people.


Tedjamulia says that lurkers are attracted to online communities because of their desire for information that is credible, relevant, and easy to find. I would put myself in this category and even venture to say that maybe I have yet to acquire the necessary skills to attract attention in an OC. Keeping a low profile has been my MO for so long. I don't really want attention, and maybe that comes through in my postings. If not for the assignment requiring a posting, I would have lurked for a while; searched for questions I would be interested in, maybe hit the point’s button a couple times for giggles. I found myself hesitant to hit the point’s button. I kept asking myself, now is this question reeeaallllly points worthy? Why must I be so rigid, it's only points? The thing is that I know that it represents something. And since I was not too sure of the community I was hesitant to participate. It's my opinion that online communities mirror real life social structures. In any group there is a mixed bag of participants. A blending of extroverts, introverts, leaders, and followers. The action of the group tends to be made by a few people, with the rest following suit.

The group that I participate in frequently is specifically for introverts. I am intrinsically motivated to post there. The article by Ling talks about the collective effort model and homogeneity as reasons why people loaf or participate. I identify with that group, I know the group "culture", and my posts are valuable to myself and others in the community. I know that I am writing about a common topic and will be well received. I would not write about being an introvert on a general online community because I would not have the same amount of trust. For the introvert group, I have the three forms of self efficacy; technology, information, and connective, mentioned by Tedjamulia that motivate me to be a part of that group. I think self efficacy can vary depending on the environment of the community.

Tedjamulia discusses the issue of trust as a contributing factor to the success of OC's. I think trust is a key component and the reason people lurk first. Check out the other posts; see if there are any mean people waiting to pounce on the next post. I did see a couple of posts on Answer bag with negative points. It's very human that even though we are communicating virtually, fear and caution are still a part of joining a new group. I have seen abusive comments in other communities. People started posting good bye messages saying that they will no longer be part of the group because it isn't safe to post. Trust is a delicate thing, virtually and in person.

Usability is an important feature that attracts people to stay in Communities. Answer bag had great structure and was easy to use. Posting a question was a snap. Everything was nicely categorized and there was a broad spectrum of topics. It was just too busy for my comfort level. Tedjamulia says, "The more visible a person’s actions are to other community members, the more he or she will contribute and participate." I felt too invisible in such a large fast pace community. I was having fun posting questions at first, but lost interest over time. I would be more motivated to continue if I could attract more attention. Maybe next time. Answer bag is a great place to find a wealth of information. It's the New York of online communities. Great place to visit, but I couldn't keep with the pace.

The three reinforcers Tedjamulia talks about are: financial, performance appraisal, and social recognition. I have yet to take part in an online community that offered financial rewards if you contribute. I’m sure I would have many pseudo profiles to help fund my tuition. I would think credibility would not be as great when offering a financial reward. I know that I would post based on what ever meat the criteria instead of focusing on content. . I have done projects as a mystery shopper and posted my results in order to get paid, but I’m not sure if it’s the same thing. I was accurate and credible in my report because I was going to be paid either way. I can see that Answer bag uses performance appraisal and social recognition as reinforcement. The points system and user level rating are forms of social recognition. Also having a lot of friends listed in your profile can be a form of status. Life’s always gonna be a popularity contest on some level. It is motivating to have social status in a group. It takes motivation to get the status and apparently the validation is not enough for me to put the energy into it.

In Riding’s article, a virtual community consists of members who interact, feel part of a larger group, and have ongoing exchanges with other members. There is the potential for this type of interaction to develop among members on Answer bag. I did not have that experience as of yet. I’m sure if you post frequently in a specific topic, you could interact with the same people and feel like you are a part of that group. My experience using Answer bag was more of an Information exchange rather than a community. I didn’t’ see the opportunity for social support, or friendships to develop. My interaction was mainly for information purposes.

Now in the name of Science, I asked some questions that I would never want my mother to hear, tehe. Brilliant, I know. I thought they would get attention. I figured there would be a delete option...I spent the better part of 20min trying to figure out where that magic delete key is. Turns out it is invisible because it does not exist. Ya see, I put on the extrovert hat for a minute and kaboom. Ugh, I'm developing a Scrat complex.

Hey little buddy.



Overall, I liked the concept and design of Answerbag. I would use it in the future as a source of information. It’s easier when there’s no pressure to get points. I would be interested in the learning more about what is a successful strategy to get points.

Session 2

The readings were very intriguing. I was particularly interested in virtual friendship and the online depression phenomena. Which lead me to wonder about people's experiences meeting in online communities. Online dating is very popular and you always see those great commercial were people are meeting their soul mate online. According to the readings people who email and connect online are prone to depression. This made me wonder about the experiences people have with meeting and dating in online communities. Are they all Prozac junkies longing for love ~or~ are they ravenously fabulous people with little time for socializing in the real world.


Question: Do people have better experiences meeting online or in real life?

To investigate this question I went to the LoveShack- interpersonal relationship center. What better place to get information on real life vs. online interaction than a dating forum.

Website: www.LoveShack.org
Username: JinxyVoodoo
Posting: http://www.loveshack.org/forums/t178489/

I think the appeal of online dating is that it is easy and accessible. Galston talks about voluntary community in his article. He uses three defining conditions: low barriers to entry, low barriers to exit, and interpersonal relations shaped by mutual adjustment rather than hierarchical authority or coercion. The online dating community would definitely fit into Galston's definition of voluntary community. The sites are open to anyone, so there are no barriers to entry. Exiting is a snap; you can even block certain people from contacting you or viewing your profile if you no longer want to connect with that person. And relations are mutual...hopefully without coercion?!?

I believe I got honest feedback from people about their experiences meeting from online interactions and communities. People were happy to share their experiences and give advice. Stitch wrote, "I'm biased and I guess lucky as I've had a lot of success with online dating. I found my wonderful boyfriend on the first try." Lucky for Stitch! Ah, if only it were that simple for the rest of us. Some people get lucky on the first try and to them I say, take your happiness and go elsewhere, just kidding. Rebellious said, "I do much better in person. Online, women are mistrustful simply because they don't know you, but in person they drool, it's a no brainer." It's interesting to read different responses and to see that people can have polar opposite experiences. As for my own experience with the online dating community, I would agree with those who said it’s a 50/50 tossup. I have meet people with really great profiles who represent themselves in a certain way, but turn out to be completely different. Albrechtslund’s article talked about the act of participating in an online community being “the act of sharing yourself – or your constructed identity – with others.” The truth is you are never meeting the real person; you are meeting their “representative.” Who you claim to be online rarely translates well when you actually meet the person and are expecting lots of chemistry. Andrewrost3241981 shared an online experience, “I once met a girl on the Internet who just turned out to be a scam artist.” See, ya just never know. It’s certainly a tossup.

LaRose's article mentioned the dangers of the online community disrupting real world ties and creating a lonely crowd. This is obviously not the case for "Stitch" who responded to my post by saying, "My boyfriend has Aspergers Syndrome, so he finds social situations fairly awkward. So going out and trying to meet people in real life was a little more complicated for him. “I think the online communities are bringing lonely people together. It’s unlikely that Stitch would have found such a great person in real life and if it did happen, it would have taken a lot more time, effort, and overcoming personal comfort zones.

Licklider and Taylor suggested that “life will be happier for the on-line individual because the people with whom one interacts most strongly will be selected more by commonality of interests and goals than by accidents of proximity.” This is very true of online dating and interactions. There are different types of dating sites for people who want to connect on a common interest. I have seen dating sites based on religion, sexual preference, and even a site for people with physical disabilities. Previously proximity was the main factor in finding a mate. Now with the online dating option people can search the world for their perfect partner. I had a friend from a book group move to Australia because she met THE ONE...apparently he was worth moving across the globe for.

According to Linton's article, "...social media do present an underexplored dimension in human relations..."We are connecting two people largely through text. Text is an impoverished medium for communicating emotion, intent, real meaning." It can be difficult to represent and express your personality in an online community. I was communicating with a potential date online and was getting really short emails. I figured this person was very quiet, but they turned out to be a nonstop talker at dinner. I got a posting from “Fishtaco" who said, “It seems to me it requires a different set of skills in order to meet people online. So if you do the online thing, not only do you need to learn how to project a winning persona through some text and pictures, you also need to learn how to do the same in person as well. I mean it's not uncommon to have people finally meet in person after interacting online for a while, only to have it fizzle.” It’s easy to add pizzazz to someone’s emailed responses and then when you meet, they have a monotone voice like the Clear Eye commercial guy.

In Rosen’s article it was mentioned that "In the offline world, communities typically are responsible for enforcing norms of privacy and general etiquette. In the online world, which is unfettered by the boundaries of real-world communities, new etiquette challenges abound. "I myself can vouch for this new etiquette being a challenge, especially in the online dating community. People in online communities often forget themselves and take on a bold expression of exhibitionism. The sense of detachment and anonymity makes rejection a non issue. I've gotten many a surprising picture confirming that my potential date is a natural blonde! That’s not real world dating etiquette at all.

It was great to get a broad and diverse set of responses by posting in an online community. If I were to talk in person, it would be a small group made up of married family members who all met through real life interactions before the internet and a small group of girl friends whom I usually swap lowered expectation stories with. By posting online, I got quick responses, a diverse group, and a wide range of experiences that I would not be available to me in real life. I think there is a wealth of information available in online communities. It’s a great place to ask questions that you may not be comfortable asking the people in your real life world.


Reaction to the readings:

Galston
Galston’s article talked about communities being “what members of groups have in common, not the nature of the communication among them.” I think a community is a place where you can voice your opinion, feel a sense of belonging, and have interaction with people of your choosing. Sometimes online communities can serve one’s needs better than real life communities. There may not be enough people in your area with the same interest to form a group. According to one of the examples of community, “Jews in the diaspora would constitute a community, even if the majority never meet one another face to face.” This seems counter intuitive to me, even though I understand the concept. I would define the “Jews in the diaspora” as a group rather than a community. I see the group as the larger scale and community on a smaller scale.

LaRose
LaRoses’ article talks about the link between internet use and depression. “In support of the Internet paradox hypothesis, other scholars have warned about the potential harmful effects of online interpersonal communication, blaming online technology for disrupting real world networks (Heim, 1993; Stoll, 1995) and creating a "lonely crowd" in cyberspace.” I disagree. I think that real world networks will remain intact if people want them too. I still see my grandma even though I email her. People will continue to have real world connections with those they are close to and they may just be using email to keep the rest at arm’s length. Ahem, if I only email you, then take the hint. I also disagree that the internet is creating a lonely crowd. It may seem that way, but I think it is actually a place for people who would have been forever lonely to meet others. The lonely crowd was always there, just unknown. Shy people can meet other shy people online. Slowly get to know people at their own comfort level before getting involved.

Linton
This article was almost shocking as I was reading about the events of the bipolar mom. I recognized the posting as the mother asking for support and attention instead of seeing the statement as an actual threat. I understand the social responsibility people felt for the safety of the child, but I think the real needs of the mother were ignored and unmet. It would have been more socially responsible for people to respond on two accounts both for the safety of the child AND for the wellbeing of the mother.

Rosen
I agree with Rosen that there is a big risk involved in putting too much personal information online. But it’s also a way to differentiate ourselves from the sea of profiles and other users, more information will get you more attention, and the more self revealing you are the more you draw a connection with other users and/ or your readers. I enjoy reading cooking blogs and relationship blogs. It’s more interesting when people add personal details it almost gives me a false sense that I know and relate to this person.